HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-09-19 - City Commission Special Meeting MinutesMAIL REPLY TO:
P.O. BOX 25010
TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33320
5811 NORTHWEs"I' 88TH AVENUE TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321
TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
September 13, 1984
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
TAMARAC, FLORIDA
There will be a Special Meeting of the City Council. on
Wednesday, September 19, 1984, at 10:00 A.M. in the
Council Chambers (rear) of City Hall, 5811 Northwest
88 Avenue, Tamarac.
The purpose of the meeting is to award a bid for garbage
and trash collection and disposal for residential curbside
and condominium dumpsters by Temp. Reso. #3286.
The Council may consider and act upon such other business
as may come before it.
The public is invited to attend.
Carol A. Evans
Assistant City Clerk
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida -tatut s
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the city
Council with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or
hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings and for such
purpose, he may need to ensure that a verbatim record includes
the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
"An Equal Opportunity Employer"
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MELTING
SLPTEMBER 19, 1984
Tape 1 LALL_.T?_,D1U F,B: Mayor Kravitz called the meeting to order on
Wednesday, September 19, 1984, at 10:00 A.M. in the Council
Chambers.
Mayor Philip B. Kravitz
Vice Mayor Sydney M. Stein
Councilman Jack Stelzer
Councilman Raymond J. Munitz
Councilman John J. Dunne
AL SD__PM: Elly F. Johnson, City Manager
Jon M. Henning, City Attorney
Patricia Marcurio, Secretary
Mayor Kravitz read the call of the meeting into the record
stating that the purpose of the meeting was to award a bid for
garbage and trash collection and disposal for residential
curbside and condominium dumpsters by
BYNOPS S 4 A_QT QN: APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. R-84-, 5' PASSED.
as amended.
Mr. Henning read em_.__Reo,_...#_j2$SZ by title.
Mr. Henning said the City had a contract with Browning Ferris
for garbage collection since 1979 which expires 10/l/84. He
said during the last several weeks the City has been coordin-
ating a bid proposal to go to bid for a contract when the pre-
sent contract expires. He said they took as source documents
the contract which the City had with BFI and the forms used for
all bids in the City.
Mr. Henning said with efforts from his office, City Manager's
office, Finance and Purchasing, they developed lengthy bid
specifications to send to the prospective bidders. He said
this was done and the bid was scheduled for opening and did
open at 2:00 P.M. on Wednesday, September 12. He said a few
weeks before the bid opening, there was a meeting of pros-
pective bidders at which time they discussed any questions
which may have been raised by the contract. He said an adden-
dum was issued about a week before the bid opening, which was
acknowledged by all the bidders, clarifying the questions that
arose.
Mr. Henning said there was a request for additional lead time
to go on line with the service and they negotiated an extension
of 60 days with BFI so that the present contract will expire on
12/1/84 instead of 10/1/84. He said the bid would begin on
12/1/84 of this year and extend until the end of September
either 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 years from now. He said the bids came
in and there was an analysis done by the Finance Department and
they, with the concurrence of the City Manager, are
recommending a 3-year contract with the lowest bidder. He said
Council has the option of issuing a contract for those amounts
of time with virtually any of the bidders if the bid complies.
He said there is one contract that will be issued for curbside,
single family service and a second contract issued for the
dumpster service which is for condominium, multi --family
service. He said it is conceivable that these services could
go to separate companies or to the same company.
1 9/l9/84
/pm
Mr. Henning said he had telephone conversations with attorneys
on behalf of. the 3 lowest bidders, waste Management, All Ser-
vice Refuse and BFI. He said he has received written corres-
pondence from Bob Huebner on behalf of BFI stating objections
to the other 2 lowest bidders.
Mr. Henning said the biggest discussion has been concerning the
bid bond which was furnished by Waste Management in the form of
a certified check in the amount of $55,000. He said some of
the bidders have objected to the size of that bid bond if the
Council wishes to entertain a contract in excess of 1 year. He
said the bid bond is 5% and they are suggesting that they would
be held to services for a $1,100,000.00 contract, either for
one year for both services or up to a 5-year contract for
dumpsters only.
Mr. Henning referred to Page 5 of the Bid Package, Paragraph
21, which stated under "Reservations for Rejection and Award"
that "the City of Tamarac reserves, and by submitting a bid,
the bidder acknowledges, the right to accept or reject any or
all bids or parts of bids, to waive irregularities and techni-
calities and to request rebids on the required materials. The
City also reserves the right to waive minor variations to
specifications. Interpretation of minor variations will be
mace by applicable City department personnel. In the event of
legal action by either party, the contract shall be bound by
t hEY laws of the State of Florida".
Mr. Henning said there has been much discussion about this bid
bond, however, this is a 3-week bond and is not the performance
bond. He said whatever contract the Council decides to author-
ize, a full performance bond would be required before the
contract would be acceptable.
V/M Stein said the objection has been raised that the cost of
securing a $226,000 bond is considerably more than a $55,000
bond, therefore, the successful bidder had an undue advantage.
Mr. Henning said this has been the argument that: has been made
and he questioned whether it is "considerably" more since it is
for an approximate 3-week period, they are talking about con-
tracts of approximately one million dollars per year and
whether or not there was any, material advantage to the lowest
bidder because of the bid bond. He said considering whether or
not that is a wai.vable defect and considering the spread in the
prices between the first and second bidder, he feels the City
is in a defensible position if it wishes to go with the lowest
bidder.
V/M Stein asked why the City is not considering a 5-year con-
tract and Steve Woad, Finance Director, said they examined the
proposal for every year. He said the difference from a finan-
cial standpoint is that the City would pay a. premium in the
early years to get that rate in the fifth year. He said they
fee]. that on the low bidders' bids for each of the years, that
premium amounts to $100,000 per year additional to select that
5-year number. He s.cai..c they f.el.t selecting a 3-year number
requires a premium of $50,000 per year and with the budget
constraints, that would be more in line at this point. He said
there was also discussion as to what will happen with the re-
source recovery program and they do not recommend the 5-year
contract.
V/M Stein said he questioned the bidders during the Workshop
Meeting on this subject and they all agreed that it would be
more economical if they received a total contract of commercial
and residential. He asked if the City were to award a 3-year
contract would it be possible to give an exclusive contract to
the residential hauler. He asked how the City could expedite
that. Mr. Wood said one of the providers cautioned the City
that this could create many legal problems for the City by
eliminating the competition in the City to the other
haulers.
2 9/19/84
/pm
Mr. Henning said there may be advantages to having a City-wide
exclusive contract, however, one of the advantages of having an
open marketplace to the extent that the City has non-exclusive
franchises with the half dozen or so providers for commercial
garbage collection is that the City allows the competitive
marketplace to prevent the commercial carriers from subsidizing
the residential service. He said, for example, if the City had
an overall contract it is possible that the residential cost
would be very low and operate at a loss and the commercial
carrier would not only be paying for his own service, but would
help to subsidize the service of the residents. He said as far
as this contract is concerned, by having an open marketplace
for the commercial business, the City is insuring the busiress
people that they are not paying a subsidy to help fund the cost
to the residents. He said perhaps this could be addressed in
the future.
Mr. Henning said the only pertinence of this discussion is to
help Council determine how long a contract they, would want.
C/M Dunne said he would assume there would be less residential
pickups in the summer and Mr. Henning said the condominiums may
have an additional pickup to handle that.
Mayor Kravitz opened the meeting to the public.
Robert Huebner, representative of BFI, said they delivered a
letter to the City of their formal protest since it was clear,
in regard to the requirement of the bid bond, that it be for
the full amount of the contract. He said the bid requirements
stated that each bidder "shall" submit the 5% amount and he
requested that if the City is going to award the contract to
Waste Management, it be done for only 1 year or 5 years on the
non --residential. He said they feel all bidders should abide by
the same rules.
C/M Stelzer said there is no additional cost to BFI in any way
and would not have changed the figures in the bid if they too
had submitted a $55,000 bond. Mr. Henning said if BFI is
suggesting that there was an unfair advantage monetarily be-
cause of the premiums involved, this should be clarified on the
record today. Mr. Huebner said he would check with his client.
C/M Munitz asked if the fact that All Service had not bid on 2
of the time periods, would void the entire bid? Mr. Henning
said they did not submit a bid on years 3 and 4, however, he is
not suggesting that their bid be disregarded because of that.
V/M Stein said the question of whether the company that is the
lower bidder had the ability to secure a $225,000 bond is
pertinent. Mr. Henning said before the execution of the con-
tract, the performance bond for the full period stipulated
would be required. He said there is no way a performance bond
would be accepted unless it were for the full amount of time.
C/M Stelzer said the money sent in with the bid is strictly
earnest money and the amount is not important since this is
returned as soon as a contract is negotiated.
Mr. Huebner said the inequity is that if they wanted to walk
away from their bid it would have cost them $225,000, however,
if Waste Management walked away from their bid it would only
have cost them $55,000. Mr. Henning said for the record, that
in speaking with Mr. Carter of All Service Refuse after the
bids were opened, he asked Mr. Carter if he wished that the
City demand that Waste Management provide the $225,000. He
said Mr. Carter said this would be negotiating with a bidder
and he did not approve of: that, therefore, Mr. Henning did not
pursue this further.
9
9/19/84
/prr'
Tony Spadaccia, representative of Industrial Waste Services,
said he would like to know how the premium service, which was a
required cost item in specification of this bid, was consider-
ed. He said Industrial Waste Service had premium service at
$1.59 per cubic yard dumped and Waste Management had proposed
premium service at $2.00 per unit. He said the dollar yardage
charge compared to a, per unit charge would make their proposal
considerably less overall. He said as an example, for the
standard set of twice a week for every 50 units, their price is
$2.79 per unit and Waste Management has $2.13 per unit. He
said should those 50 units require extra service, their added
cost for those 50 units would be $2.00 per unit or $100.00. He
said Industrial Waste's costs at $1.59 per cubic yard would
relate to $27.35 for those same 50 units. He said he would
have to assume that anything other than a 4 cubic yard
container twice a week is premium service. He said their plan
would charge for the exact extra amount of service rather than
a flat fee. He said he would like to know how the premium of
Waste Management was decided on, how it related to Council's
decision, and why Industrial Waste was not considered as the
number two bidder.
Tape 2 Mr. Henning asked Mr. Spadaccia if he knew how many
condominiums have the third day pickup and Mr. Spadaccia said
he does not know but there are a considerable amount that do.
Mr. Henning said this was discussed by staff and there were
figures for the difference in the savings to the City vs. the
savings to the home or condominium owner. He said the bid of
Industrial Waste on a 3-year contract for condo dumpster is
$2.79 per unit as cost to the City and Waste Management's bid
is $2.13 per unit. He said there is a difference of $.66 per
unit per month which totals an annual cost of $47,520 to the
City. He said this would be an added expense to the City of
approximately $145,000 over a 3-year contract.
V/M Stein said the City is bidding a contract for a, twice -a -
week pickup for the residents and this is part of the ad val-
orem tax. He said everyone in the City receives the same
service and anything else requested by the residents should not
be a consideration in the bid. He said otherwise this would
penalize the other residents who do not receive a third day
pickup. Mr. Henning said since the City is giving an exclusive
contract, there is a provision in the contract so that the
amount for a third day pickup cannot be raised to an extra-
ordinary amount over the term. of the contract. Mr. Spadaccia
said that since the City made the premium service a part of the
bid specifications, it should not be disregarded. He said he
would like Council to consider awarding the condominium dis-
posal bid to Industrial Waste Services and the residential
properties to the apparent low bidder.
Shirley Blumfield, resident, asked how the residents will be
protected against poor service once the contract has been
awarded. Mr. Henning said there is a performance bond that
protects the City against this problem.
Emerson Allsworth, attorney for Waste Management, said the bond
they submitted to the City was a cash bond. He said they had
the alternative of an insurance company bond or a cash certi-
fied check and they chose the cash bond. He said he computed
the differential on the interest between $55,000 and $210,000
for three weeks at 12%, the difference would be approximately
$900. He said they interpreted the contract to require only
the amount of the bond they submitted.
4
9/19/84
/pm
Mr. Allsworth said it would have been no problem for them to
have submitted a bid bond in any amount since they have the
financial. resources. He said this would not give an advantage
to any company since any company that was not able to put up
the bid bond would not be able to furnish the performance bond.
Mr. Allsworth said the bid from Waste Management represents a
substantial savings and they will give the City excellent
service. He said the question of the bid bond is moot after
today anyway and the performance bond is the important factor.
He urged Council to consider a. 5-year contract to avoid higher
rates later.
A.J. Ryan, attorney representing All Service Refuse Co., said
they submitted a bid and their exposure on the bid bond was in
the amount of $262,000. He said the longer the term of the
contract, the greater the cost would be to the City and he
suggested the City only award Waste Management a one year
contract. He said they were the low bidder on the curbside but
not on the condominiums.
Mr. Henning asked Mr. Huebner if he wanted to address the
Council on any figures concerning premiums and Mr. Huebner said
they have no further comments.
V/M Stein said for the record that his MOTION will be for a 3-
year contract and All Service Refuse did not bid on a 3 year
contract. He MOVED APPROVAL of inserting inserting in
Section 1, "the bid of Waste Management In.c. of Florida" and
the sum of 0$4.89 per unit" for a "three (3)" year contract.
He said inserting in Section 2, "the bid of Waste Management
Inc. of Florida" and the sum of "$2.13 per unit" for a "three
(3)" year contract. SECONDED by C/M Dunne.
C/M Munitz asked if this was the recommendation of the Finance
Director and the City Manager and V/M Stein said that is
correct.
YS?—T- : ALL- YOTED AY E
V/M Stein said Mayor Kravitz copied Council with a memo
requesting Council members suggest which liaisons they would
like to have. He said he would appreciate if Mayor Kravitz
would act on this as soan as possible. Mayor Kravitz said he
did not receive any communication except from V/M Stein and he
requested all other members of Council forward their communica-
tions to him as soon as possible.
The meeting was adjourned at 1.1:15 A.M.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
This public document was promulgated at a cost of $79.60
or $2.21 per copy to inform the general public and public
officers and employees about recent opinions and considerations
by the Council of the City of Tamarac.
CITY OF TAMALA A .,
APPR VED AT MEETING OF oZ
City Clerk
5
9/19/84
/pmj